For those of you watching from the sidelines, the rotisserie
being discussed can be viewed at the H2O site: (01)
http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewRotisserie.do?rotisserieId=132 (02)
[eugene wrote:] (03)
> Here are my thoughts. First, the obvious disclaimer. This was
> obviously an unscientific, self-selecting experiment, and we'd need to
> play with it some more to do it proper justice. That said, H2O is
> definitely not well-suited to small, motivated teams, which we were.
> None of the threads reached resolution, and I suspect a big reason was
> that we were not given a choice as to which threads to respond.
> Rotisserie's theory of maximizing participation seems to be a good way
> of encouraging many voices, but a poor way of reaching resolution. (04)
I'm not sure if I agree with this. I think there are several
other variables that may have had an impact: (05)
- we didn't go into the discussion with a shared understanding
of the question being asked
- we were not "trained" in the tool
- there was no compelling reason to be successful (no cost for
failure, no concrete gain from success)
- the rotisserie settings were wrong for the type of discussion
we were trying to have:
- 24 hours was too short for people who have other things they
need to be doing
- 4 rounds was just enough to get us started
- while we don't have any apparent winnowing of discussion in
the threads we produced we do have three postings that
received high evaluations (where high is defined as greater
than the maximum points one reviewer could apply): (06)
4: http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewThread.do?postId=2104#2104
3: http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewThread.do?postId=2103#2103
3: http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewThread.do?postId=2120#2120 (07)
The first two provide some metrics/criteria, the third raises
another question and provides an alternate strategy of
investigation. (08)
> Second, despite the self-selecting nature of our group, two people who
> signed up (Eric and Michael) did not participate at all, and two
> people (Aldo and Chris) didn't participate in later rounds. I'd like
> to know why. Note that this is not criticism; merely curiosity.
> Rotisserie is supposed to discouraging lurking, and yet, in our small,
> motivated group, a third of us still managed to lurk. So perhaps the
> hypothesis has some flaws. (09)
I went away for the weekend without computer access. I withdrew
from the project to ensure that I wouldn't be selected for
further followups. An improvement I would suggest for H2O is an
option to declare weekends "off". I'm assuming some announcements
went out over the weekend? (010)
> Finally, I think there were some excellent posts, and I'd like to
> continue those conversations (perhaps in another medium) and reach
> some resolution. I agree with Brian about the notification -- I liked
> it -- and I also liked the enforced pacing. (011)
I found the enfored pacing quite excellent. While I think
there were some limitations to the enforced response cycle (thou
shalt respond to this posting and only this posting) as earth
noticed (012)
http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewThread.do?postId=2125#2125 (013)
I kinda liked it too. I felt less loaded. As I sit here getting
ready to do the summary for the collab lists I'm confounded by
the number of things to which I did not respond that I feel I
"should have". (014)
But, this is perhaps because I prefer to have as much as possible
routinized in a stigmergic sort of way. That is, external
constructs in the world, that I am exposed to and learn, become
eventually invisible, habituated, supporters of my cognition.
--
Chris Dent
cdent@blueoxen.org (015)
--
This message is archived at: (016)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=Pine.LNX.4.30.0302242144530.6673-100000@hot.burningchrome.com (017)
|